November 17, 2012

At some point in the process — [David] Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

“The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said after the House hearing. “We need to find out who did it and why.”...

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that Mr. Petraeus explained to lawmakers that the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Mr. Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.

Including Mr. Petraeus, who had the motivation of trying to keep his job, which he was deprived of immediately after the election. Now, he has the motivation of trying to regain his honor.

Ms. Feinstein, read the final unclassified talking points to reporters:

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

“This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

“The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”

So this should bring an end to the disgraceful attempts to politicize the attack on our ambassador. But will it?

From NY mag:

Then why alter the talking points at all? From the AP:The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail. ...

"There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information."

So there was a conspiracy ... to catch the terrorists. According to Huffington Post, John McCain, "who also attended the Petraeus briefing, said nothing in his remarks afterward about Rice or his demand for an investigation by a new select panel."

This story is like a prism that separates the reds from the blues in their varying hues. It's very difficult for those on the right to see this as anything but a botched cover-up. I think (and have seen evidence from liberals that) it must be very difficult for those on the left to see it as anything but a series of well-intentioned miscommunications.

The honorable Ms. Fienstiens statement do not jibe with the reports from the people on the ground which stated it was a coordinated attack by armed actors. That Libyan security was taking photos of the inside and outside of the embassy days before the attack. That a mortar team had laid in and registered their mortar hardly speaks to demonstrators.The Preateus affair is a dog and pony show meant to distract. The wording hardly matters. It is the cover up that matters.What was going on at the embassy in Benghazi? Why wasn't there any security when it was known for months that islamic extremists were in Benghazi and security was requested. Why was what little security already there reduced?

What Feinstein read sounds like a talking point from within the White House.

"Final unclassified TALKING POINTS."hmmm? Talking points, indeed.

It was never the video. So, yes - talking points were substituted.The administration didn't have to push "it was the video" if there were conflicting reports or it the investigation wasn't complete.Why did they push "it was the video" with such certainty for so long?

I find it odd that since the attack on 9/11 that Thursday was the first time that the new "classified so that we can catch the bad guys" meme has surfaced. If it was true it would have been out there long ago especially in an Administration who doesn't give much thought to security over politics. Remember how quick they told the story of the killing of Bib Laden even though it tipped off hundreds of Al Qaida and sent them back underground.

This new narrative was cooked up as part of the cover up and probably fairly recently.

Okay, I'm really confused. If the video-protest cover story was used not to tip their hand, then why have none of the "protestors" been detained? And didn't I read about one of the Al Qaeda members behind the terrorist attack, days after the incident, boasting about his killing of Americans and taunting us to come and get him? What the hell is going on?

So, they were trying to fool the terrorists, not the American people? Really?

A US consulate and a CIA annex less than a mile away are attacked by local terrorist cells. And the administration didn't want to "tip off" those groups that their organizations were known by the US CIA?

I suppose by that logic subtracting security from those sites and not mobilizing a military rescue must have really kept them in the dark.

Bob Ellison said...This story is like a prism that separates the reds from the blues in their varying hues. It's very difficult for those on the right to see this as anything but a botched cover-up. I think (and have seen evidence from liberals that) it must be very difficult for those on the left to see it as anything but a series of well-intentioned miscommunications.

For there to have been a cover-up there had to be a motive, other than the counter intelligence one provided above. What possible motive was there? Everyone hates fucking al Qaeda, why not just blame them for the attack? It's the political equivalent of blaming the boogie man, an all purpose excuse. If anything, blaming a popular demonstration is worse for the president because it undermines his narrative of improving relations with arab countries.

"What is that “honor”? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. 'Tis insensible, then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore, I’ll none of it. Honor is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism."

This wasn't a botch cover up, it was a successful cover up, the election is over.

We didn't want to give the attackers a heads up? There weren't witnesses in Benghazi, residents and our escapees? Those Benghazi Sand Hillbillies evidently don't have modern communications and media? They never heard of a drone, surveillance cameras? WTF!

They weren't hiding info from the attackers, they were hiding the info from the electorate.

I don't think anyone in this country has thought for two minutes that the threat from Islamic jihadists, al Qaeda or otherwise, has been defeated. We're constantly on edge over threats and have been for years and years.

For the people who believe that Obama is not covering up anything in Benghazi, I just don't get it.

First, you have to not believe the facts presented (non-intelligence agencies messed with talking points meant for the American public for Benghazi, a known-known, we can say; that the President gave the order to do everything to save those people, but no one did anything and no heads have rolled for it; etc.) Not only that, they require you to believe that the Obama administration -- which has illegally fired and repositioned IGs and whistleblowers -- is willing to be transparent and open.

How does not blaming al Qaeda help reelect Obama? As Bush showed blaming some nefarious, vaguely defined enemy is a wonderful way to get reelected. Obama could have initiated a bunch of drone strikes killed a bunch of people, claimed they were all al Qaeda operatives and been in much better shape for the election.

Obama hasn't claimed to have eliminated al Qaeda. Otherwise the administration would not be constantly telling us how this or that drone strike killed the third right hand man of the second in command of the Sudanese al Qaeda franchise.

And if at the 11th hour of the election al Qaeda attacks the United States, people go flocking to the President's side. He's the one that took care of bin Laden after all. What has Romney ever done to stop al Qaeda or Islamic jihadism?

How does that help reelect POTUS? Outside threats or assaults are generally seen as HELPING the incumbent.

Explain it to me reasonably Bob Ellison. You got some credibility with me.

which leads back to; what was going on at the embassy in Benghazi that was worth lying about? what was going that was worth four dead operators?

All we have from Prateus is that Prateus is not so good at extramarital affairs. Why even bring it up unless you want to discredit him. Why discredit him unless he has something on you.Prateus has stuck with his story that no one in the CIA altered the reports. That leaves State and the administration, unless there is another entity downstream from Prateus.

For more evidence, try Googling Obama+al+Qaeda+on+the+run and similar combinations.

It can't have escaped your notice that this was part of Obama's re-election strategy. He argued that where Bush handed us eight years of defeat and never-ending war, Obama delivered peace and victory. Maybe that message wasn't very important to the left, but it was very important to the center.

If it had come out that, as appears in fact, al Qaeda is very much resurgent in many countries, and helped carry out the murder just before the election of four American diplomats, that would have killed the storyline. Obama might have lost.

Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

Sigh. We're still not there. Romney took a lot of heat immediately after 9/11/12 for daring to suggest that we should never apologize to terrorists. This was also when our President was out there apologizing for the video as the principle cause of Benghazi.

The phrase "al Qaeda is on the path to defeat" was the notable addition to his remarks. Obama has often used the phrase "al Qaeda is on the run" when describing his national security bona fides, most recently last Thursday in Miami.

"I said we'd refocus on the people who actually attacks us on 9/11 and today, al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead," he said.

The riot in Cairo may have been ouched off by the fiery imam down the street in response to "the video," but it is at least 6 to 5 that it was the new governnment in Egypt letting Washington know they were unhappy about some of the talk they have been hearing out of D.C. lately. I think I also saw an item that Mr. Morsi or some cabinet member had opined that he thought Egypt also had ought to acquire nuclear deterrent about that time.

I think that I also saw something that the amateur crew attacking the consulate indeed had made an attempt to simulate a riotous demonstration, and there had been some noise made about "the video," but not with much luck since the "rioters" had not been told what that was supposed to be about.

But why did the administration fall in with this and keep pushing this tale onto us?

There has indeed been something going on here, and we do need to find out just what the heck it was.

The killing of an ambassador was potentially electoral gold for Obama if the sole motive was to ensure his reelection. He could have ramped up the xenophobia machine, bombed a bunch of shit and then pee'ed all over the ground like Bush and his 'Mission Accomplished' sign and been a 'war president' leading into the vote.

The people who walked away from Whitewater, the Rich pardon, and bj's in the Oval Office will not find this a challenge to their honor. Ken Starr, the lawyer who investigated Clinton affair, was accused of writing a report filled with the kind of prurient details that only a pervert would take note of. The man was clearly a sicko. It's safe to say that his reputation was far more effectively besmirched than that of Clinton......It is likely that those who accuse Susan Rice of being passsive or gullible in her reporting of the BenGhazi affair will be characterized as misogynistic or racist. And that is the charge that will stick....I think it's endearing and touching that Republicans keep thinking that someday they will win one of these arguments. Yes, Virginia, there is a scandal.

"On the run" is a lot different than "defeated" or "peace and victory!" Much, much different.

And if there was an attack on 11th hour from al Qaeda or any other Jihadists, I maintain that there would be no reason for the American electorate to turn away from the only President who showed reasonable success against al Qaida than turn towards the failed Middle East policies of the Republicans under a completely inexperienced former Mass. Governor.

Yes, chickelit's point is good. Obama's offensively stupid UN speech, taking collective blame on behalf of all Americans for the "the video made them do it" myth, and failing to say "we love our freedoms and don't apologize for them", was undoubtedly encouraging to terrorists worldwide.

I'll say it: Obama was relieved that this was a murder mission rather than a hostage situation. That way, he could plausibly do exactly as he did, so close to the election. Better to ignore security, fail to respond to the attacks in any meaningful way, and lie to the American people.

In a hostage situation, he would have actually had to make a "gutsy" call.

Chants of... "Obama we are all Osama" were heard far and wide, in the streets of the rioting middle east-- Right after the DNC convention, where much fussand bragging about the death ofOsama bin laden occurred.

ARM said...The killing of an ambassador was potentially electoral gold for Obama if the sole motive was to ensure his reelection. He could have ramped up the xenophobia machine, bombed a bunch of shit and then pee'ed all over the ground like Bush and his 'Mission Accomplished' sign and been a 'war president' leading into the vote.

This thread has essentially turned into a descent into madness for Obama partisans.

Our government often lies to us. They often manipulate us. They lie about military operations. They lie to us about the cost of things (obamacare). They lie to use about the effect of their legislation (If you like your insurance, you can keep it).

They don't respect us.

So, why do so many people believe that "big government" politians *care* about us when they lie to us and manipulate? They don't care about your life and your dreams. They care about their power and their control.

I guess the Left never does learn, does it? People with brains know who put up the sign and why. Those at naval bases see them every time a ship concludes its tour. But do keep up the bullshit. It's what you're known for, actually.

Clearly, I was just extrapolating from current policy, which could have been very effectively turned to facilitate Obama's reelection. The fact that they didn't do this was one reason why I thought it likely that Obama was going to win. If they had really been in trouble I have no doubt some poor bastard in Libya would now be a hole in the ground.

Yeah, that's the ticket-- we wanted to make sure that al Qaeda would think we're a bunch of blithering idiots. I hope they didn't notice that CIA station in Benghazi---shhhhh....everyone keep quiet so they don't notice now. Wow, gotta hand to the Administration, they get cleverer by the minute.

Americans may rally around the leader when crises hit here in the US.But they did not rally around Carter during the Iran hostage crisis,They did not rally around Clinton when alQaeda hit two embassies in Africa or the USS Cole.They did not rally around Bush during Katrina.

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo

That is a blatant lie. In fact it's several blantant lies.

There were no demonstrations in Benghazi at all.

The attack was not spontaneous.

The attacked happened on 9/11 and had been planned in advance.

Someone in the Obama administration sought to link Benghazi to Egypt, and then to link it to the youtube video.

To hide the CIA link?

To hide the CIA annex and the (possible) interrogation of prisoners at the CIA annex?

You can see why the head of the CIA might want to hide any CIA missions. But you can also see why the Obama administration would not be interested in discussing its CIA operations right before the election. Particularly when our ambassador is murdered.

"The fact that they didn't do this was one reason why I thought it likely that Obama was going to win."

-- Did you read the link? They actually have been inflating the number of militants killed in their bombing by redefining anyone in the area of one of our bombs as a militant, despite them being civilians. They have engaged in a cover up to hide the nature of collateral damage from drone strikes. I pointed out that they are doing -exactly- what you said they would be doing (dropping bombs, claiming kills).

Obama just wanted another foreign policy success to go along with his previous work--worsening of the euro crisis by weakiening America's economy that continues to roil America’s largest trading partners, the Arab Spring that replaced American allies with radicals, Iran’s march to build an atomic weapon, China and Russia acting increasingly aggressive in both military and diplomatic spheres--the world has become even more dangerous on Obama’s watch. You know the stuff that got him re-elected.

ARM is pissed that you know fact that weren't provided by the official government Media. They are, of course, true, being facts. But you are only supposed to know what they tell you. That is his great case against "Faux News," in his Left-addled mind. It will never occur to him that he just made the case against the Media that is in bed with the Democrats.

We all remember that when Bush won in 2004, the Lefties accepted everything the Right had been saying previously and they all went to work making sure the next four years were smooth sailing for the Prez and the Nation.

When *the voters* let government officials get away with crap (lying, corruption, unethical behavior, etc), we enbolden them to act in this way. They feel that, even if caught, they can hold on and ride it out. The people will get tired of the controversy, and they will believe that the other side is 'just being political'.

We need to stop defending or excusing these people, and hold them accountable.

I'm not so sure the compound in Benghazi was a consulate. It's not listed on the official list of US Embassies and Consulates and Diplomatic Missions.

It's on the internet. And the page has an official seal. And the address ends in .gov so it's real, Man, totally real.

Oddly, it's not listed in Africa.

As if North Africa is a totally different thing.

And Benghazi isn't listed at all which means it doesn't exist.

Our CIA was busted moving weapons and attacked.

I never heard of Rice. I thought they were talking about Condoleezza at first, it took a few cites to sort that, then I saw her for the first time, as if out of nowhere from my perspective a new face, I'm sure she is famous I just hadn't noticed her until she popped up with her big fat urgent lie. And I sat here in real time and commented "what a liar." You had only to hear it to know it was a lie. Turned the channel and there she is again. And again. Suddenly Susan with a big fat urgent lie all over the place, so that's how I know her. Liar.

Perfect for advancement in this administration.

I didn't see them all but she popped up all of a sudden and hit the circuit hard.

Hillary delivered the same speech.

Obama delivered the same speech. To the U.N., all within days.

But let's dismiss all this chicanery. An acquaintance got very angry with me for pointing this out. He rejected it. I'm a crackpot, conspiracy theory guy, sore loser you see.

Darrell said...ARM is pissed that you know fact that weren't provided by the official government Media.

No. From a purely partisan perspective I am perfectly happy for you to believe everything you see on FOX and hear from Limbaugh. That is never going to be a winning strategy. These are niche media markets that only harm the long term electoral prospects of mainstream republicans

Bush wore that flight suit on he landed on that "Mission Accomplished" carrier--USS Abraham Lincoln--because he was allowed to "assist" (for a second or two--here and there)in the carrier landing being an experienced jet fighter pilot and all. Clinton and Obama wore them because they think it makes them look cool and tough--more important that the fucks they really are.

My favorite part is how we left the consulate and all the information inside completely unprotected for the next 3 weeks for alQaeda to rummage through, but are supposed to believe Obama lied to the American people so alQaeda wouldn't know our secrets.

Maybe Obama decided not to intercede in Benghazi because CIA was involved. You want to hide CIA operations, so when they go bad, you don't intercede.

On the other hand, it's idiotic to have the ambassador in an unsecured location right next to a CIA annex that is secure.

And people died who were not CIA.

But what's really annoying is that Obama is continuing the lie, even after the CIA involvement been acknowledged. The head of the CIA has resigned. The whole story is coming out. And yet he's still lying, and liberals are still covering up for him.

The secrecy of the CIA sometimes comes into conflict with the open and free society that we all love. And so while we might acknowledge that our government might have to lie--or at least cover up--CIA involvement, it's still jarring when our President lies to us. And it doesn't seem to bother him or slow him down at all.

As for the liberals who still believe the cover story, I don't know what to say. You might start by acknowledging Obama has been doing drone attacks for quite a while now, and he's not Mr. Civil Liberties by any stretch of the imagination. And you might think about the filmmaker who was sent to prison in order to keep the CIA cover story intact.

And it's disquieting that the Obama administration is doing CIA operations without informing the Senate Intelligence committee. I don't know if that's illegal (might be) but it's certainly not going to make him any friends in Congress.

For there to have been a cover-up there had to be a motive, other than the counter intelligence one provided above. What possible motive was there? Everyone hates fucking al Qaeda, why not just blame them for the attack?

Cover up CIA involvement. Cover up CIA operations in Libya. The closest people to the attack on the consulate was the CIA. And the administration did not want to acknowledge any CIA operations in the country. They didn't want to involve CIA.

And (I'm trying to be fair here) this might not have been a national security calculation rather than a political one.

CIA ops are almost always secret. It's the nature of the CIA.

But it was certainly a bad call to not help the ambassador.

And, it seems to me, the secrecy of the CIA seems to have unhealthily mixed with the secrecy of an Obama administration who is in the middle of a campaign. He told a lot of very public lies. And many people believe them because they want to believe them. I just find that very dangerous. And the media's complicitness in all of this is very dangerous, too.

What's really annoying is the liberal press--and the pacifist left--who is totally cool with drone strikes, CIA black sites, and filmmakers thrown in jail. You wonder what else they would allow to happen without any criticism.

Yes, that was the lie you fucking Lefties told to the rubes--your base--Mitt was a liar. Except everything they said that about is true and documented. Do you know Al Qaeda translates to "The Base?"That's probably why Obama didn't want to upset them.

Saint Croix said...As for the liberals who still believe the cover story, I don't know what to say. You might start by acknowledging Obama has been doing drone attacks for quite a while now, and he's not Mr. Civil Liberties by any stretch of the imagination. And you might think about the filmmaker who was sent to prison in order to keep the CIA cover story intact.

You were doing OK until that last paragraph. On what planet would you have to be living to not know about the drone strikes? And, if you had been paying any attention to the fallout from the Petraeus-Broadwell affair, you would know just how much breast beating there has been over our new surveillance state. Are you credibly trying to argue that Republican's wouldn't be worse on these issues. At least the Dems don't sanction torture. We live in an imperfect world.

With respect to the odious film-maker, he deserved to go back to jail. He was a racist, law-breaking, ex-felon who broke his parole conditions and tried to incite violence against jews. There was no free-speech issue there. His video is still freely available.

For there to have been a cover-up there had to be a motive, other than the counter intelligence one provided above. What possible motive was there? Everyone hates fucking al Qaeda, why not just blame them for the attack? It's the political equivalent of blaming the boogie man, an all purpose excuse. If anything, blaming a popular demonstration is worse for the president because it undermines his narrative of improving relations with arab countries.

Obama's misrable faailure of a foreign policy would be exposed if Al Qaida still existed and was growing. The appeasement not working would look really bad for Obama, and just before the election.

Yes, armed drones were minutes away in Libya but we had an agreement with the impotent provisional government there not to fly armed drones in urban areas. A mortar attack on a US consulate where the established Gov't can't or won't stop it is no reason to go back on your word. Nope.

Now, any Republican President would have ordered in the armed drones which were already in-country minutes away. I agree with ARM on that point.

Yes, the Left is not cool with Obama's drone policy. Except the part where an unarmed drone was brought to a heavy-weapons fire fight. How many votes did Obama lose with the Left? We'll never know. Zero might be a good guess.

gerry said...Obama's misrable faailure of a foreign policy would be exposed if Al Qaida still existed and was growing.

How is this consistent with the Obama government's regular pronouncements regarding the killing of yet another al Qaeda operative in some god-forsaken rat hole in North Africa or the middle east? No one has claimed that al Qaeda has been completely eliminated. To the extent that there is any claim it is that the Obama strategy of drone strikes is a marked improvement over spending nearly a trillion dollars to invade a country in which no al Qaeda operatives are present.

"There was no free-speech issue there. His video is still freely available."

Yes, you can still read writings of those assassinated for their speech too.

Also, anyone know where the money was funneled to that "the video" maker and his partner scammed. Two middle easterners running a electronic bank fraud, one rats out the other and changes his name, makes a video to excite Mideast unrest. He is arrested for parole violations related to making a video and put in solitary confinement. You can't make this shit up.

Also, anyone know where the money was funneled to that "the video" maker and his partner scammed. Two middle easterners running a electronic bank fraud, one rats out the other and changes his name, makes a video to excite Mideast unrest. He is arrested for parole violations related to making a video and put in solitary confinement. You can't make this shit up.

Still defending this screwball? Making this guy a poster boy for the First Amendment is completely in keeping with the reasons I believe Romney was widely rejected by the electorate. However moderate he wanted to portray himself, he could not escape the extremists who glommed on to him. The GOPs extremist reputation because of these guys completely dogged him.

How is this consistent with the Obama government's regular pronouncements regarding the killing of yet another al Qaeda operative in some god-forsaken rat hole in North Africa or the middle east?

No. No. No.

You see, the drone strikes were and are predominantly in Afghanistan, what then-Senator Obama called the "just" war. In North Africa, Obama "led from behind" the Europeans to embrace the "Arab Spring", with its enlightened, progressive freshets of democracy, rights for womens and their parts, and so forth.

THAT is what is incompentent and what had to be suppressed. His foreign policy failure.

If this happened under President McCain, liberals would have headlines about Benghazi every day. And they would tell us about the CIA involvement. And right-wingers like me would be reminding people about national security and the importance of secrecy in CIA missions.

But it's all flipped around. Obama is doing drone strikes, so he doesn't have any prisoners to waterboard at Guantanamo, which is still open. How is that coming along, liberals? It should be closed any day now, right? Obama is doing all this nasty stuff in private. While in public he's all "freedom for Libya!"

So this Benghazi scandal involves his private CIA nasty secret coming into conflict with his hope and change diplomacy. "We don't need any security!" And then he doesn't want to talk about it because it involves his nasty CIA secret side. And he will let his diplomat die, and independent filmmaker is sent off to prison, to protect the secret.

And the media is all about protecting the secret. So it's just a big lie with you people now.

No, sorry, I prefer the more honest and upfront Republicans. And I prefer an angry and activist liberal press to this complicit and sniveling Pravda mentality.

And I'll say this flat out. Presient McCain never would have abandoned those people. And you know this. We all know this. So please spare me any argument that Republicans are always worse. Like hell we are.

Saint Croix said...Guantanamo, which is still open. How is that coming along, liberals? It should be closed any day now, right?

Obama, as promised, tried to close Guantanamo. He was blocked by republicans in the house. Unlike the republican fantasy, he does not have king-like powers. He didn't deliver single payer health care either. Rational people recognize that there are limits to his ability to achieve these goals.

It was within his power to stop sanctioned torture. There was no greater blot on America's reputation than this, and of course the insane war in Iraq, which he also ended.

St. Croix said...You can see why the head of the CIA might want to hide any CIA missions.

You know what's odd about all this?

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft...

Weird how the CIA itself didn't think the truth would hamper the CIA's operations.

Petraeus doesn't know who changed the talking points but he signed off on them and then lied to Congress on Sept. 14 about the attack. His counter-insurgency plan failed in Afghanistan because Afghanistan is a dark ages country of tribal illiterates. And he cheats on his wife with a loose cannon groupie. The Best and the Brightest.

You don't have to be that creative to think of a motive, ARM. The administrations primary claim that it had any success in foreign policy was that it had pretty much taken AQ out of the picture. Covering this up helped sustain that argument through the election.

NB: This doesn't mean I accept any conspiracy, but a motive is easy to discern.

I weary of all the focus on the post-attack bureaucratic CYA scramble. It is usually inevitable, and in the event, always predictable. Pearl Harbor, Beirut barracks, 9/11/01, et. al. For me, the question is always ‘Did the responsible people and agencies demonstrate a core competency in “provid[ing] for the common defense”’?

Assessing such competency begins with inquiry into two fundamental questions:

• Are there foreseeable threat agents to our personnel and interests who have motive and opportunity to strike?

• Have I marshaled sufficient force protection assets and policies to address the threats?

Before the fact, the administration chose hope over experience to answer “No” to the first question, and after the fact deployed the video trope. Given this conclusion, they then asserted that DoS SOP regarding Libyan diplomatic security policy was therefore sufficient.

I fear that those in the diplomatic corps and military with skin in the game will conclude this group of decision-makers considers them expendable, and will behave accordingly. It all makes the Presidents supporter’s constant vows to “have his back” deeply ironic.

The truth was there for all to see, no special clearance needed. Muslims, even stark raving mad ones, even those stirred up by a film they have no possible means of seeing, do not have rocket launchers. They do not have the ability to fight Navy Seals for hours. So all this jabber isjust another way to run out the clock and tire us, get us to the point where our brains tell us that what we know we dont know. It is amazing to watch this happen in front of our eyes here in the twenty first century, to see unfolding the very things foretold vy Orwell. Utterly fascinating that we have come to this.

Was the "avoid tipping terrorist" policy implemented before Obama killed Osama or after Obama gave Hollywood unprecedented access for a movie about how Obama killed Osama and told everyone not to spike the football?

I'm fuzzy on the timeline for the shift in... (wait for it)... policy.

Instead of pushback against the right, I'd like to hear if you think about the incident and the lapses leading up to it.

I don't know enough about the incident and the lapses or other conditions that lead up to it. I look forward to a thorough, robust inquiry by Congress. And I'm not making predictions what their findings will be.

Strategists change their minds about strategy after receiving new information sufficiently different from what they thought they knew before. The only new info Petraeus had after signing off on the CIA's original talking points, AFAIK, is that somebody above him in the chain of command wanted to change them.

He agreed to it, b/c that's what you do in the chain of command.

Also a bit odd, I think, is that the NYT's big source on all this is an anonymous "senior official." Why isn't whoever altered the talking points willing to take credit for it?

The truth was there for all to see, no special clearance needed. Muslims, even stark raving mad ones, even those stirred up by a film they have no possible means of seeing, do not have rocket launchers. They do not have the ability to fight Navy Seals for hours. So all this jabber isjust another way to run out the clock and tire us, get us to the point where our brains tell us that what we know we dont know. It is amazing to watch this happen in front of our eyes here in the twenty first century, to see unfolding the very things foretold vy Orwell. Utterly fascinating that we have come to this.

Republicans are just interested in creating political theater and inflicting damage upon the Obama Administration. If you buy into the Republican talking points, you would think that Ambassador Rice was more at fault than the terrorists themselves. Even after hearing that Rice was simply communicating the intelligence she was given, they insist on tarnishing her record.

Worst of all is the sheer hypocrisy of the Republican witch-hunt. Their mighty Reagan had Marines with unloaded rifles guarding their barracks in Beirut. After 240 Marines were killed he quietly slunk away with no retaliation. The Bush administration led us into Iraq under the completely erroneous notion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. McCain and his fellow republicans played no small part in selling this lie to the nation and to the world. As we all know, these WMDs never existed. Yet, to this day, none of these Republicans have step forward to take responsibility for their role in the Iraq War debacle. That to me is the real scandal.

That applies to you, phx, as well. You've lost every engagement with me on this board. I expect that trend to continue. But, hey. It's great that you believed your Mom when she said that you were a special snowflake. Keep on believing.

The truth was there for all to see, no special clearance needed. Muslims, even stark raving mad ones, even those stirred up by a film they have no possible means of seeing, do not have rocket launchers. They do not have the ability to fight Navy Seals for hours.

That's just bullshit by the way. Libyan Muslims had just fought a war with Qadaffi's army, and lots of weapons that they captured were distributed through the population.

They also fought like lions, in many cases going against bullets with their bare chests.

Well I don't know Darrell, while I've been out here honestly defending my positions for good or ill against a number of opponents, you've been sitting back making old jokes like Don Rickles and talking about what a great debater you are.

Patrick said...The administrations primary claim that it had any success in foreign policy was that it had pretty much taken AQ out of the picture.

Maybe they are as dumb at politics as everyone on the right seems to believe but the smart political move was to blame al Qaeda, bomb someone in retaliation and then say, in a deep voice, 'Thanks to our glorious military and courageous political leadership we have avenged the cowardly murder of our ambassador'. Probably worth 3 points on the election with the added benefit of keeping Romney off the front pages as we followed the breathless reporting on the military strikes.

They clearly had a broader goal, which as far as I can see was to not undermine the very fragile and vaguely pro-western Libyan government. As far as I can see they have acted in the long-term interests of the US, which is support the not completely insane factions in these arab countries.

Gary. Comrade!! Rice was only following orders. Odd that the Benghazi theatre critics had sophisticated weapons. A UN Ambassadoress could not be faulted for not noticing that difference between these critics and those they were mimicing in Cairo. But you go on believing that and taking comfort in the failures of Republican presidents which gives you leave to never criticize Democrats. Hypocricy indeed.

The truth was there for all to see, no special clearance needed. Muslims, even stark raving mad ones, even those stirred up by a film they have no possible means of seeing, do not have rocket launchers. They do not have the ability to fight Navy Seals for hours.

"That's just bullshit by the way. Libyan Muslims had just fought a war with Qadaffi's army, and lots of weapons....

They also fought like lions, in many cases going against bullets with their bare chests."

The Bush administration led us into Iraq under the completely erroneous notion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. McCain and his fellow republicans played no small part in selling this lie to the nation and to the world. As we all know, these WMDs never existed.

It was within his power to stop sanctioned torture. There was no greater blot on America's reputation than this

I think slavery and infanticide are bigger blots, moron.

And why is waterboarding worse than a drone strike? If you were an innocent man, and you were given a choice between illegal detention and waterboarding, or a drone strike against your family's house, which would you choose?

The Bush administration waterboarded 3 people at Gitmo. That's your greatest blot on America's reputation. What kind of enhanced interrogation is the CIA doing under Obama? Do you know? Do you care?

Hurricane Katrina. Disaster! Bush did it!

Hurricane Sandy. Obama's a hero! So glad the storm happened!

Anything that happens is just subsumed under your stupid ideology. There are no drone strikes. There is no enhanced interrogation. What CIA? There is no story here. The hurricane is over.

Your ideas are wrong, but what's truly shocking and awful is how much factual information you are willing to dismiss, distort, or ignore in the service of your ideology. It all goes down the memory hole.

Hahaha. Just like all angry theatre goers! I can see you sympathize with these fighters. How revealing.

I did. I sympathized with the freedom fighters against Qadaffi a lot. The men and women who put their lives on the line against that dictator, and in many cases lost them, probably did more for freedom than you ever will do in your life.

They clearly had a broader goal, which as far as I can see was to not undermine the very fragile and vaguely pro-western Libyan government. As far as I can see they have acted in the long-term interests of the US, which is support the not completely insane factions in these arab countries.

Perhaps you're right. Just seems a bit overly credulous to me. I am less willing to just assume a benign or noble motive to politicians, even those with whom I agree.

Phx. So these are the same guys who killed our ambassador? Were the angry protesters with weapons at hand these guys or other guys? Your writing and thinking skills are making a muddle of what, exactly, you think about this protest gone wrong in a country where every person has been distributed a weapon.

Hahaha. Just like all angry theatre goers! I can see you sympathize with these fighters. How revealing.

I did. I sympathized with the freedom fighters against Qadaffi a lot. The men and women who put their lives on the line against that dictator, and in many cases lost them, probably did more for freedom than you ever will do in your life.